HeiressofBickworth
HeiressofBickworth's JournalI see this as a part of the RW long-term planning
to eliminate Medicare entirely. Starve the Beast. When fewer and fewer doctors/hospitals allow Medicare patients, the RW can declare Medicare an utter failure and eliminate the program. THAT's the long term goal. To get rid of Medicare. They have not been successful in privatizing it, in voucherizing it, or defunding it outright, so the back-door plan is to force it's failure.
As medieval as it sounds, I also think the long-term plan is to cull the herd -- allow attrition -- just as Alan Grayson said, if you get sick, die quick.
The loss of the USPS would mean
that delivery of mail would be in the hands of profit-makers who could abandon routes and entire sections of the country that, due to terrain or other natural barriers (currently served by USPS), make them more expensive to maintain, cutting off people in those areas. This would have a serious affect on local businesses, markets, etc.
As it is now, even when a package originates as UPS or FedEx or one of those, if destined for a remote (expensive to service) area, the last leg of its journey is performed by (are you ready for this) the UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE so that cost is borne by the USPS! UPS or FedEx can maintain their profitability. This proves that Republicans are willing to sacrifice what they hold dear (profits) in order to destroy a government service.
Am I the only one who sees the
connection between the land-grab by Israel and the rockets from Gaza?
I actually have little sympathy for either side and what I see is a continual war between Israel and Palestine which will only be resolved when both sides destroy each other. The seeds of this conflict run so deep that it is impossible to point a finger at who started it -- it's now one act of revenge against another. There are apparently no peace-makers on either side.
This is a conflict that I believe the US should stay out of. It can do us nothing but harm to take a side since (IMHO) neither side has the proverbial "clean hands".
Let's drill down to the actual consumer level
My primary care-giver is a small neighborhood clinic. When I turned 65, I was told that because I was a long-term patient, I would continue to receive care under Medicare but that the clinic is not taking new Medicare patients. Ok, so this worked out for me. But what if I had to move to another location? If ALL doctors refused to take new Medicare patients, I would have no doctor at all just like Medicare patients moving to THIS area will be refused service.
I see the plot developing thusly: Make cuts to providers who then won't see Medicare patients. When the majority of Medicare patients are without doctors or hospitals, complain loudly how Medicare "doesn't work". After proving how Medicare "doesn't work", cancel the entire program. The right-wingers failed to privatize the system and have consistently failed to destroy the system, so they will achieve the same results by cutting the foundation out from under the patients. Rich Republicans will not rest until seniors die and get out of the way. They disgust me to my core.
As I mentioned on a previous thread,
I once worked for a disaster clean-up company. It was a subsidiary of the engineering firm I worked for. One of the engineers came up with an idea that he thought would make money -- cleaning up disaster-struck areas. Clients were cities, counties, states. There was a very involved computer program to track truck loads of debris as this information formed the basis of the billing method. He was right, the enterprise made a fortune and I, low on the totem pole that I was, received the largest bonus I had ever received in my entire working life. The company provided a much-needed service to local communities and, other than management, hired local people to do the dirty work and paid local prevailing wages. So where did the money come from to pay for all of this? The company billed the client and (with the company's assistance) the client billed FEMA. When FEMA paid the client, the client paid the company. What Jeb Bush is planning is to form a company just like the one I described. The Repubs may TALK about defunding FEMA, but when they form their disaster companies, they know that ultimately the money to pay for all of it will come from the Federal Government, because THAT's who has the money. Cash-strapped cities, counties, states or individuals in the midst of disaster do not have the funds to pay for the clean-up and they won't venture into this kind of business without lining up their paying customers in advance. ONLY the Feds have the actual money to pay. What Jeb et al are doing is placing yet ANOTHER corporate layer between the work to be done and the source of the money to do it (FEMA) in order to skim profit off of disasters. So once again, they are spouting ideas that have no bearing on reality -- not that we should be surprised about that. To pacify their small-government libertarian wing of their party, they will talk about defunding FEMA, but with so much money to be made in that industry, they will never actually do it. More bait and switch politics.
Here's where I don't understand Romney's thinking
If disaster relief and clean-up is given to private companies SOMEONE STILL HAS TO PAY THOSE COMPANIES. Who does Romney think will be footing the bill?
Some years ago, I worked for a disaster relief company. The company went into areas where something had happened and coordinated clean-up and hauling away debris. The client was A CITY, A COUNTY, OR A STATE. And where did the City, County or State get THEIR money? From FEMA, of course. And the company subcontracted some work out to other companies. All that really happened was that there were middle-men between FEMA money and the clean-up efforts. It still got paid by the federal government.
So Romney's idea of privatizing is just another scam to put layers of companies between FEMA and the real work so profits will go to the companies. If FEMA actually hired people (I don't believe they do) to perform disaster relief work, it would provide JOBS and because there would be no company layers in the middle looking for profits, the work could be done at a lower cost.
The main problem with Romney is that he doesn't understand the difference between running a company for profit and governing a country for the benefit of its citizens. More reason why he should only be allowed in the White House on a visitors pass.
I absolutely RESENT the
bait and switch politics Romney plays. He can say whatever he wants in the next few days but WE (the people) remember what he's been saying in the last six years -- he's a CONSERVATIVE and all that connotes. Restriction of personal rights for women, outsourcing jobs to China and other cheap labor countries and massive tax cuts for his rich cronies. DON'T BE FOOLED by this monumental LIAR.
They are insecure men with little dicks
who are intimidated by the all-powerful, mystical, threatening VAGINA! The playground where their inadequacies are exposed. Since they are unable to unravel the majesty of the Vagina, they make themselves feel better by unequal pay for equal work, diminished civil rights, and the most sought after revenge: women being prohibited from controlling their own bodies and reproduction. Real men don't act that way, thank heavens.
I'm old enough to remember when my mother, who bought and sold real estate for a living, wasn't able to do so without the written consent of my father who wouldn't know a deed of trust from a tool belt.
The most surreal funeral I've ever been to was my father's
It had been over 20 years after my parents divorce and I hadn't seen him in all that time. There was one brief phone call which in itself is another story. Suffice it to say, I had not been in touch with him for a long time. I noticed the funeral announcement in the paper so I went. I knew he had remarried but what I didn't know (until the funeral) was that he had invented an entirely different life history. I knew there would be no mention of my brother, sister or me, but I was shocked that his entire HISTORY had been re-written. Military experience he never had, a job he never had, claimed to be a pilot!!! which he never was. After the ceremony, I spoke with the minister of the church. Not wishing to talk directly with the Grieving Widow, I asked the minister to convey the condolences of his first family. The minister looked at me like I just dropped in from Venus. She said she never knew he had a first family. She even asked me if I was sure I was at the right funeral. I told her that his name, birth date, birth place, parent's names and his sister's name, his wife's name and that he worked at Boeing were all consistent with my father's information. I was indeed at the right funeral. She had been told that he and the Grieving Widow were married in 1942. I told her, no, that was the year he married MY mother. I told her that he and the Widow were married in 1969 after he and my mother divorced. So, it appeared that TOGETHER he and the Widow concocted a lovely story for the minister that had no basis in truth. I was never able to determine if she passed her children of her previous marriage off as his. I left chuckling to myself at how odd this all was and how utterly unnecessary it was to lie -- I could never figure out the benefit of the lies.
My mother was also a consumate liar
She, however, admitted to it and in fact, seemed rather proud of it. She once said she lied for two reasons: to make herself look better or to get someone to do what she wanted. So, there were times that I just asked her, "is this the lie to make you look better or the lie to get me to do what you want?" That pissed her off.
There really is no effective way to deal with a liar other than to carry a shield of disbelief of everything that comes out of the liar's mouth. There's no point in even having a conversation with a liar as it takes too much effort to fact-check and otherwise make a determination whether or not there is any truth in what was said.
I think that's why I didn't watch the last presidential debate. I pretty much understood Mr. Obama's position on many things -- we've seen his work over the last 4 years and the Republican determination to thwart him at every turn. And as far as Romney is concerned, it takes a TEAM of fact-checkers to figure out all his lies, misrepresentations, obfuscations, etc. No point in even listening to him.
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayCurrent location: Snohomish County, WA
Member since: Wed May 18, 2011, 02:12 AM
Number of posts: 2,682
